list_mongo_collections

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying 'visible, non-system' collections, implying filtering of internal collections. However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, permission requirements, or potential errors, leaving gaps for an agent to infer.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence (10 words) that is front-loaded with the action verb. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no superfluous information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so return values are covered by the schema. However, the description lacks parameter semantics and usage guidance, and with no annotations, the behavioral context is thin. It is adequate but leaves notable gaps for an agent to discover.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single parameter connection_id. The description mentions 'MongoDB connection' but does not explicitly explain that connection_id identifies which connection to use. The parameter name is self-explanatory to a degree, but the description adds no direct parameter mapping or type details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'visible, non-system collections for a MongoDB connection,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle SQL tables, indexes, or connections. The scope is well-defined and matches the tool name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for MongoDB connections, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like list_tables or list_schemas. There are no exclusions or alternative names mentioned, so guidance is only inferred from the MongoDB context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.